Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): Laboratory Weed Seed Predation and Within Field Activity-Density

1999 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dora M. Carmona ◽  
Fabian D. Menalled ◽  
Doug A. Landis
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel González ◽  
Miroslav Seidl ◽  
Martin Štrobl ◽  
Tomáš Kadlec ◽  
Marco Ferrante ◽  
...  

Non-crop habitats can act as refuge for insects in agricultural landscapes and increase ecosystem services (ESs) in neighboring arable fields. Among the different types of non-crop habitats, field defects are temporary patches where sown plants are poorly developed and other plant species emerge. These defects can be common and large in years with extreme weather conditions. However, their relevance as habitat for beneficial insects and ESs provision is unknown. Here, we quantified two ESs (pest and weed seed predation) in field defects within oilseed rape crops and related ESs levels with the activity-density of ground beetles and temperature. In 10 fields, we used artificial caterpillars made of plasticine and seed cards of two weed species (Taraxacum sp. and Stellaria sp.) to quantify ESs in two sampling periods (spring and summer) and in three habitat types: field defects, standardly grown crop (field interiors) and crop-defect boundaries. Ground beetles were sampled using pitfall traps and classified into feeding guilds and body size classes. Insects and mammals were the main pest predators and predation increased in summer, but did not differ among habitats. Seed predation rates for both species were significantly higher in summer. Predation of Taraxacum seeds was higher at field interiors, whereas predation of Stellaria was significantly higher at field interiors and defects, compared to crop-defect boundaries. Insect predation increased with the activity-density of medium and large carnivorous carabids, whereas seed predation for both weed species was positively related to the activity-density of medium-sized herbivorous carabids. Finally, temperature was negatively linked to predation of artificial caterpillars and seeds of Taraxacum.


Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 828-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rocio van der Laat ◽  
Micheal D. K. Owen ◽  
Matt Liebman ◽  
Ramon G. Leon

Field experiments were conducted near Boone, IA, to quantify postdispersal seed predation of common lambsquarters and common waterhemp in corn (2003) and soybean (2004) managed with conventional, reduced, and zero-tillage systems. Seed predation in each tillage regime was quantified using selective exclusion treatments during July through September 2003 and June through October 2004. In addition, the activity density of ground-dwelling invertebrates was estimated with pitfall traps. Choice and no-choice feeding trials were conducted in the laboratory using the most abundant weed seed predators found in the field to determine seed preferences of the potential predator organisms. The greatest seed loss occurred during July and August. In 2003, seed predation was lower in zero tillage than in conventional and reduced tillages, but no differences in seed predation between tillage regimes were observed in 2004. Maximum seed predation for common lambsquarters was 53% in 2003 and 64% in 2004. Common waterhemp seed predation reached 80% in 2003 and 85% in 2004. The majority of seed predation was by invertebrate organisms. The most common invertebrate species captured with pitfall traps were field crickets (Gryllus pennsylvanicusDe Geer [Gryllidae, Orthoptera]) and ground beetles (Harpalus pensylvanicusBurmeister [Coleoptera, Carabidae]). In 2003, field crickets were relatively more abundant in conventional and reduced tillage than in zero-tillage plots. In 2004, field crickets were more abundant in the reduced tillage than in the other two tillage regimes. No differences were detected for ground beetles among tillage regimes (P = 0.57). Choice and no-choice feeding experiments confirmed the preferences of field crickets and ground beetles for common lambsquarters and common waterhemp seeds over the larger seeds of giant foxtail and velvetleaf. Under field conditions, the activity density of field crickets was a significant predictor of common lambsquarters (r2= 0.47) and common waterhemp (r2= 0.53) seed predation. Positive relationships were also detected between the activity density of ground beetles and common lambsquarters (r2= 0.30) and common waterhemp (r2= 0.30) seed predation. This research demonstrated that weed seed predation is an important component affecting weed seedbanks and that crop management practices that favor the activity of predators such as field crickets or ground beetles could influence weed populations. Also, the results suggested that tillage is more important in determining the number of weed seeds available on the soil surface to predators than directly affecting predator activity density.


Weed Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith J. Ward ◽  
Matthew R. Ryan ◽  
William S. Curran ◽  
Mary E. Barbercheck ◽  
David A. Mortensen

The activity-density ofAmara aenea(DeGeer) andHarpalus pensylvanicus(DeGeer) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was monitored in an experiment that compared five management treatments representing a range of disturbance frequencies, crops, and aboveground biomass production. In 2004 and 2005, three treatments comprised of multiple summer cover crops were compared to bare fallow and soybean, the latter of which used mechanical cultivation to manage weeds. In 2005 weed seed predation was assessed from June to September in two of the treatments (bare fallow and oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch). Beetle activity-density varied with treatment, time of sampling, and year. In 2004 peak activity-density ofA. aeneawas highest in the mustard/buckwheat/canola, but there was no difference inH. pensylvanicusactivity-density. In 2005 activity-density ofH. pensylvanicuswas higher in oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch than in soybean treatment. Seed predation rates were relatively consistent across treatments, averaging between 38 and 63%. In fallow and oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch,H. pensylvanicusactivity-density accounted for 29 and 33% of the variation in seed predation, respectively. Our findings suggest cover crops have a positive effect on the activity-density ofA. aeneaandH. pensylvanicusand that disturbance negatively influences their activity-density in the absence of cover crops.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Carbonne ◽  
Sandrine Petit ◽  
Veronika Neidel ◽  
Hana Foffova ◽  
Eirini Daouti ◽  
...  

Abstract Carabids are generalist predators that contribute to the agricultural ecosystem service of seedbank regulation via weed seed predation. To facilitate adoption of this ecosystem services by farmers, knowledge of weed seed predation and the resilience of seedbank regulation with co-varying availability of alternative prey is crucial. Using assessments of the seedbank and predation on seed cards in 57 cereal fields across Europe, we demonstrate a regulatory effect on the soil seedbank, at a continental scale, by groups formed of omnivore, seed-eating (granivore + omnivore) and all species of carabids just prior to the crop-harvest. Regulation was associated with a positive relationship between the activity-density of carabids and seed predation, as measured on seed cards. We found that per capita seed consumption on the cards co-varied negatively with the biomass of alternative prey, i.e. Aphididae, Collembola and total alternative prey biomass. Our results underline the importance of weed seedbank regulation by carabids, across geographically significant scales, and indicate that the effectiveness of this biocontrol may depend on the availability of alternative prey that disrupt the weed seed predation.


Weed Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharavari S. Kulkarni ◽  
Lloyd M. Dosdall ◽  
John R. Spence ◽  
Christian J. Willenborg

We used laboratory and field feeding trials to investigate adult carabid beetle preferences for three brassicaceous weed species (rapeseed, wild mustard, and field pennycress) that are pests in canola. All carabid species preferred seeds of rapeseed most and those of field pennycress least and showed intermediate preference for wild mustard seeds. Beetles highly preferred imbibed seeds of all three weed species. Activity–density of carabids and mean weed seed removal were highly correlated in field plots of canola, with activity–density accounting for 67% of the observed variation in seed removal. Our study indicates that seed consumption among carabids is influenced by several factors, including weed species, physiological state of seeds, and carabid activity–density. Carabid seed predation is significant in canola agroecosystems; therefore, understanding these influences has implications for ecological weed management.


2000 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabián D Menalled ◽  
Paul C Marino ◽  
Karen A Renner ◽  
Douglas A Landis

2009 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Navntoft ◽  
S.D. Wratten ◽  
K. Kristensen ◽  
P. Esbjerg
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre M M C Loureiro ◽  
G Christopher Cutler ◽  
Vilis O Nams ◽  
Scott N White

Abstract Poecilus lucublandus (Say), Pterostichus mutus (Say), and Harpalus rufipes (De Geer) are abundant Carabidae in lowbush blueberry fields and may contribute to weed seed predation. We used laboratory no-choice test experiments to determine if these beetles feed on seeds of hair fescue (Festuca filiformis Pourr., Poales: Poaceae), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata L.), and red sorrel (Rumex acetosella L., Caryophyllales: Polygonaceae), which are common weeds in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait., Ericales: Ericaceae) fields. Poecilus lucublandus and P. mutus did not feed on seeds of the test weed species, but H. rufipes consumed on average over 30 seeds of each species. There are other weed seeds in blueberry fields that could be palatable to P. lucublandus and P. mutus, which warrants further research on the granivory potential of these important carabid species.


2011 ◽  
Vol 140 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 191-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minoru Ichihara ◽  
Keisuke Maruyama ◽  
Masayuki Yamashita ◽  
Hitoshi Sawada ◽  
Hidehiro Inagaki ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document